Editor,
Because of the length of this response I ask that it be published in your op-ed section. It is only fair that a full reply be published to General
Mackenzies statements.
Generals and Gansters
If General Lewis Mackenzie speaks for the General Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces then Canada is in a great deal of trouble. His article
entitled "Canada is hiding behind the UN's skirts" is nothing less than an hysterical call for the violation of all international law and section 31
of the National Defence Act. It is the ravings of a bully and a coward, of a man without any sense of democracy, of law, of any humanity.
General Mackenzie attacks democracy in Canada by mocking it. He says "political leadership qualifies as an oxymoron" but that he can live
with that in the domestic sphere but when it comes to foreign affairs there is no room for democracy. Decisions on matters of foreign policy
must be left to an elite armed with secret information withheld from the public.
Then he arrogates to himself and the elite he speaks for the power to make decisions of life and death by saying that foreign policy and
defence policy require "real leadership" which can only mean the leadership of the generals and those antidemocrats they support. His
arrogance is overwhelming. According to him "classified intelligence" cannot and should not be shared with the public". Well then, General,
just who should have this intelligence in a democracy? Who is the people? Is it you and the general staff. Is it the spooks in CSIS? Is it your
cronies in Washington and London? By what right do you claim the privilege of having certain information and not the people who elect the
government and who pay the wages of the army and supply its soldiers?
The General hides his true agenda behind this claim. He hides his real contempt for democracy, for the people for the rule of law, for
transparency in government, for the right of the people to be informed of the reasons for actions taken in their name.
The General then attacks the United Nations for being ineffective becuase it is held captive by the five permanent members of the Security
Council. This criticism, while true, is laughable coming from a man who supports the drive to war by its most powerful member, the United
States and which country controls the Security Council as the British playwright, Harold Pinter, said in his January 21 speech to the British
House of Commons with 'bribes, bullying, intimidation and bullshit".
The General then lists a series of "ineffective" UN operations as some sort of argument against relying on the UN for anything. But in each of
his examples the failure of the UN was a result of the empire-building schemes of the United States and its other partners in crime, Germany,
Britain, France, Belgium. In each of those examples, just as in the case with Iraq now, the UN was used as a cover for operations which were
in reality designed to serve the interests of the United States and its axis partners; Yugoslavia was torn apart by wars provoked and controlled
by the US, Britain and Germany. Somalia was an operation to control the Horn of Africa and the sea lanes to the Persian Gulf. Rwanda was a
war in which the UN was used as a cover for the assassination of the legitimate President of the country and the seizure of power by a rebel
army supported by the United States and Belgium for the sole objective of seizing control of the vast natural resources of the Congo.
In each of these cases, the UN operations would have worked to restore peace and stability if the UN had been left alone to do its proper job.
But in each case the UN was sabotaged, manipulated and used to secure the imperial ambitions of the United States. If General Mackenzie
wants to complain about the ineffectiveness of the UN then he should complain about his cronies in the United States who again wish to use
the UN imprimateur as a figleaf for a war of aggression.
The General states that Canada has igored the UN in the bombing of Yugoslavia (he states Serbia and Kosovo which reveals his ignorance
as Kosovo is a province of Serbia) and then uses this to justify his call to attack Iraq. What hypocrisy! What contempt for the truth! "Canada
had the right to operate outside the UN process.." What right General? Please tell the people of Canada from which law this right eminates.
But the General is either abysmally ignorant of history and the law or he is deliberately attempting to mislead the people.
There is no such right. Canada, as a member of the United Nations is bound by its Charter, a document designed expressly to prevent the
type of wars General Mackenzie is screaming for. But now the General, in lockstep with the gangster regime now in control of the American
miitary machine calls for Canada to abandon 58 years of history, 58 years of participation in the United Nations to satisfy his friends at the
Pentagon.
But more than this, the General knows that Section 31 of the National Defence Act forbids the use of Canadian forces in overseas operations
unless there has been an attack on Nato or in compliance with its commitments to provide peace-keeping forces for peace-keeping
operations. Any other use of Canadian Armed Forces is illegal. The use of our armed forces to bomb Yugoslavia was illegal under Canadian
and international law and was a war crime, the use of our troops in Afghanistan is illegal and the use of our troops aganst Iraq would be illegal
and a war crime. The government simply has no authority to issue such orders and the Armed Forces have no right to accept them.
The General then claims that there is "justification for intervention in Iraq..." Well, General, let us not use euphemisms. Let us tell the people the
truth. You are claiming that there is justification for the cold-blooded murder of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And
for what, General? Not weapons of mass destruction which Iraq does not have but which the United States does. Not for democracy, for it was
the United States who put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place. Not for the protection of the world becuase Iraq, that tiny, poor,
miserable nation is too weak to even control it own border territory and has suffered daily bombing attacks by the US for the past 12 years.
No, General, you know as everyone in the world knows, this war is about oil and the control of the largest river systems in the region and is a
step to an attack on Iran. It is a war of conquest plain and simple. Even more accurately it is war in which the axis of evil now forged between
Washington and London plans to openly steal the natural resources of the suffering people of Iraq. It is gangsterism plain and simple. Al
Capone couldn't do it better.
And like one of Al Capone's loyal lieutenants, General Mackenzie wants "credit" for contributing to this pillage and rape of a sovereing
country. What that credit will be he does not inform us. It will not be to Canada's credit, General. It will be to its shame.
General Mackenzie is right about one thing. Canada has hesitated too long. But it is not time to lead this war of agression, this gangster
attack, and it is not time to follow the United States in its criminal policies and it is not the time to stand aside and let it happen. There is
another choice General. Canada can take the lead in standing against this gangsterism. Canada can stand for civilization, for law, for
justice, for humanity and most importantly for peace by denouncing the the plans of the Anglo-American axis of evil and calling on the world
community to do the same. The people of Canada demand it. It is they who are Canada, not the generals.
Christopher Black
Barrister
Toronto, Ontario
905-773-4140
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because of the length of this response I ask that it be published in your op-ed section. It is only fair that a full reply be published to General
Mackenzies statements.
Generals and Gansters
If General Lewis Mackenzie speaks for the General Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces then Canada is in a great deal of trouble. His article
entitled "Canada is hiding behind the UN's skirts" is nothing less than an hysterical call for the violation of all international law and section 31
of the National Defence Act. It is the ravings of a bully and a coward, of a man without any sense of democracy, of law, of any humanity.
General Mackenzie attacks democracy in Canada by mocking it. He says "political leadership qualifies as an oxymoron" but that he can live
with that in the domestic sphere but when it comes to foreign affairs there is no room for democracy. Decisions on matters of foreign policy
must be left to an elite armed with secret information withheld from the public.
Then he arrogates to himself and the elite he speaks for the power to make decisions of life and death by saying that foreign policy and
defence policy require "real leadership" which can only mean the leadership of the generals and those antidemocrats they support. His
arrogance is overwhelming. According to him "classified intelligence" cannot and should not be shared with the public". Well then, General,
just who should have this intelligence in a democracy? Who is the people? Is it you and the general staff. Is it the spooks in CSIS? Is it your
cronies in Washington and London? By what right do you claim the privilege of having certain information and not the people who elect the
government and who pay the wages of the army and supply its soldiers?
The General hides his true agenda behind this claim. He hides his real contempt for democracy, for the people for the rule of law, for
transparency in government, for the right of the people to be informed of the reasons for actions taken in their name.
The General then attacks the United Nations for being ineffective becuase it is held captive by the five permanent members of the Security
Council. This criticism, while true, is laughable coming from a man who supports the drive to war by its most powerful member, the United
States and which country controls the Security Council as the British playwright, Harold Pinter, said in his January 21 speech to the British
House of Commons with 'bribes, bullying, intimidation and bullshit".
The General then lists a series of "ineffective" UN operations as some sort of argument against relying on the UN for anything. But in each of
his examples the failure of the UN was a result of the empire-building schemes of the United States and its other partners in crime, Germany,
Britain, France, Belgium. In each of those examples, just as in the case with Iraq now, the UN was used as a cover for operations which were
in reality designed to serve the interests of the United States and its axis partners; Yugoslavia was torn apart by wars provoked and controlled
by the US, Britain and Germany. Somalia was an operation to control the Horn of Africa and the sea lanes to the Persian Gulf. Rwanda was a
war in which the UN was used as a cover for the assassination of the legitimate President of the country and the seizure of power by a rebel
army supported by the United States and Belgium for the sole objective of seizing control of the vast natural resources of the Congo.
In each of these cases, the UN operations would have worked to restore peace and stability if the UN had been left alone to do its proper job.
But in each case the UN was sabotaged, manipulated and used to secure the imperial ambitions of the United States. If General Mackenzie
wants to complain about the ineffectiveness of the UN then he should complain about his cronies in the United States who again wish to use
the UN imprimateur as a figleaf for a war of aggression.
The General states that Canada has igored the UN in the bombing of Yugoslavia (he states Serbia and Kosovo which reveals his ignorance
as Kosovo is a province of Serbia) and then uses this to justify his call to attack Iraq. What hypocrisy! What contempt for the truth! "Canada
had the right to operate outside the UN process.." What right General? Please tell the people of Canada from which law this right eminates.
But the General is either abysmally ignorant of history and the law or he is deliberately attempting to mislead the people.
There is no such right. Canada, as a member of the United Nations is bound by its Charter, a document designed expressly to prevent the
type of wars General Mackenzie is screaming for. But now the General, in lockstep with the gangster regime now in control of the American
miitary machine calls for Canada to abandon 58 years of history, 58 years of participation in the United Nations to satisfy his friends at the
Pentagon.
But more than this, the General knows that Section 31 of the National Defence Act forbids the use of Canadian forces in overseas operations
unless there has been an attack on Nato or in compliance with its commitments to provide peace-keeping forces for peace-keeping
operations. Any other use of Canadian Armed Forces is illegal. The use of our armed forces to bomb Yugoslavia was illegal under Canadian
and international law and was a war crime, the use of our troops in Afghanistan is illegal and the use of our troops aganst Iraq would be illegal
and a war crime. The government simply has no authority to issue such orders and the Armed Forces have no right to accept them.
The General then claims that there is "justification for intervention in Iraq..." Well, General, let us not use euphemisms. Let us tell the people the
truth. You are claiming that there is justification for the cold-blooded murder of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And
for what, General? Not weapons of mass destruction which Iraq does not have but which the United States does. Not for democracy, for it was
the United States who put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place. Not for the protection of the world becuase Iraq, that tiny, poor,
miserable nation is too weak to even control it own border territory and has suffered daily bombing attacks by the US for the past 12 years.
No, General, you know as everyone in the world knows, this war is about oil and the control of the largest river systems in the region and is a
step to an attack on Iran. It is a war of conquest plain and simple. Even more accurately it is war in which the axis of evil now forged between
Washington and London plans to openly steal the natural resources of the suffering people of Iraq. It is gangsterism plain and simple. Al
Capone couldn't do it better.
And like one of Al Capone's loyal lieutenants, General Mackenzie wants "credit" for contributing to this pillage and rape of a sovereing
country. What that credit will be he does not inform us. It will not be to Canada's credit, General. It will be to its shame.
General Mackenzie is right about one thing. Canada has hesitated too long. But it is not time to lead this war of agression, this gangster
attack, and it is not time to follow the United States in its criminal policies and it is not the time to stand aside and let it happen. There is
another choice General. Canada can take the lead in standing against this gangsterism. Canada can stand for civilization, for law, for
justice, for humanity and most importantly for peace by denouncing the the plans of the Anglo-American axis of evil and calling on the world
community to do the same. The people of Canada demand it. It is they who are Canada, not the generals.
Christopher Black
Barrister
Toronto, Ontario
905-773-4140
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id={9CAFDCD9-7FB6-4334-B822-03\21080997E5} NATIONAL POST, Friday, January 31, 2003 Canada is hiding behind the UN's skirts Lewis MacKenzie National Post In 1959 I was an officer cadet undergoing infantry training at Camp Borden, Ont. My sergeant instructor, a Korean War vet, had just confronted me with a tactical problem. We were under sniper fire and it was my job to tell the five cadets with me how we were going to eliminate the problem. I hesitated for only a few seconds and the good sergeant bellowed in my ear: "Mr. MacKenzie, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!" At numerous times during the past few months I have felt like yelling the same entreaty in the direction of Parliament. Knowing, however, that current government decision-making is inoculated against such firm advice I restrained myself. All too often in Canada "political leadership" qualifies as an oxymoron. Within a democracy I can live with that. There is little wrong and much to praise when public opinion drives government policy in areas such as health care, transportation, communications, immigration etc. Foreign policy, however, and its partner defence policy are the exceptions. Both require real leadership because frequently decisions must be made based on classified intelligence that cannot and should not be shared with the public and therefore have no influence on the polls. One thing is for sure. For breathing space on the Iraq file Canada has decided to hide behind the skirts of the United Nations -- presumably assuming there is a genetic disposition among Canadians to trust the UN. Our Prime Minister has even congratulated himself for "convincing" U.S. President George Bush to go to the UN for the final decision on Iraq. Now don't get me wrong, the UN does some very good work around a troubled globe. UNICEF, UNHCR and numerous other UN agencies alleviate suffering in a multitude of countries and deserve our respect and support. Nevertheless, in the critical area of international peace and security -- the very raison d'�tre for the institution at its birth in 1945 -- its post-Cold War record is abysmal, consisting of a litany of high-profile and disastrous failures. These are not to be blamed on a series of UN Secretaries General and their staffs, but rather on the overwhelming national self-interests that drive the decision-making process amongst the five veto-holding members of the Security Council. Canada is presumably prepared to subordinate its decision on Iraq to a Security Council that wouldn't provide enough muscle to stop the civil wars in Yugoslavia; abandoned Somalia; ignored Rwanda in spite of the pleas from 800,000 victims for mercy; needed a predictable disaster to occur before reacting in East Timor; dithered while people were mutilated and slaughtered in Sierra Leone and gave false hope to the innocents in the Congo when it knew all along that tough military intervention would not be approved. All of that in a mere 10 years. Canada, having provided modest military support to all of the foregoing missions, should understand better than anyone the limitations inherent in the Security Council's ability to do the right thing. When convenient, we have in the recent past ignored the need for UN endorsement for multinational military action. Although I was opposed to NATO's bombing of Serbia and Kosovo, I accepted that Canada had the right to operate outside of the UN process when it felt the UN was incapable of action. Canada's decision to join the NATO intervention was based on the facts and intelligence of the day -- erroneous as a good deal of it was! -- not on public opinion polls. There is more justification for intervention in Iraq today than there was for bombing Serbia in 1999, but our government insists on confusing its public, and more importantly its allies, with non-committal and confusing utterances suggesting we might or might not lend a hand when necessary. The effectiveness of diplomacy, in this instance, is directly proportional to the force available to back it up if necessary. Our modest military contribution to the war against terror in the region -- currently two frigates and some air transport and maritime patrol assets -- are important but low-risk contributions. There is a rule that says the credit you receive for contributing to a multinational force is directly proportional to the risk you accept. Like it or not that means boots on the ground as witnessed by the international attention paid to our PPCLI battle group in Afghanistan. We, like the Americans, Australians and the British, should be moving our Army contribution in the direction of the Gulf to enhance the very diplomacy that could well prevent a war. We don't have to agree to join the war before we deploy troops, but we do have to decide that we will participate if the intelligence revelations dictate such action in the future. Without pre-deployment we couldn't get our Army units there in time even if we wanted to. Surely that is not what the government wants? If it is, it could be the last nail in our credibility coffin. We have hesitated too long. It's time to "lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!" Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired, commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992. |
